Why is the extreme issue with ICE only in one state?

Stopped_lurking · Sunday at 9:59 PM

stevevw said:
But tendentious means pushing a controversial and a biased conclusion. Its certainly not controversial. Its an obvious conclusion.

It is enough if it pushes a particular perspective.

stevevw said:
Just because its called spectulation does not mean its tendentious. Like I said theres different kinds of spectulation. Some are well supported like officers defense. Others are unreal like the one you suggest.

You introduced it. I don't claim to know what Pretti thought. If you first say that maybe he went to check if his gun was still in place, you can't just declare it as a unreal possibility. One of the things you learn when having a weapon is to always know where it is.

eclipsenow · 2026-02-09T01:27:52-0600

Getting back to the title of the thread... maybe - just maybe (but this is probably the sort of thing I say because I've been infected by the Radical Socialist Left mind-virus!

)... I've got this crazy idea... but... MAYBE it's because of stories like this next one?

Or do they do this in Texas as well, and Texan's just go along with it?

If so - what's wrong with Texans?

ICE officers detain five-year-old Minnesota boy as he arrives home from preschool

Topic:Immigration

Fri 23 JanFriday 23 January

A young boy with a beanie and backpack on facing a car with a scared expression.

Liam Conejo Ramos, 5, was detained after arriving home from preschool. (AP: Ali Daniels)

In short:

A five-year-old boy has been taken by immigration officers in Minnesota to a facility in Texas with his father.
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson says officers did not target the boy but his father was in the US illegally.

What's next?

The family lawyer says he is looking at options to "free them, either through some legal mechanisms or moral pressure".

Link copied
Share article
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents seized a five-year-old boy from a running car as he arrived home from a preschool in Minnesota and took him to a Texas detention facility, school officials say.
The officials and the family's lawyer said the boy and his father were taken to a detention facility in Texas, making the boy the fourth student from Minneapolis detained by immigration officers in recent weeks.
Federal agents took Liam Conejo Ramos from an idling car in the family's driveway on Tuesday afternoon, Columbia Heights Public Schools Superintendent Zena Stenvik said.

ICE agents walk a young boy to a house door.

Liam Conejo Ramos was taken to a facility in Texas. (Reuters: Rachel James/Supplied)
The officers then told him to knock on the door to his home to see if other people were inside, "essentially using a five-year-old as bait", she said.
Ms Stenvik said the family, who arrived in the US in 2024, has an active asylum case and has not been ordered to leave the country.
"Why detain a five-year-old?" she asked.

'The alien has been released': Shocking way US is treating those arrested by ICE

Sam says his ancestors arrived to the US on the Mayflower. He now fears his wife and daughter could be arrested at any point by ICE agents. 7.30 goes inside their home.

www.abc.net.au

stevevw · 2026-02-09T02:11:42-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
It is enough if it pushes a particular perspective.

Not if its well supported. Its much more obvious and reasonable to say his thinking matched his actions. That his thinking was conflicting with his actions. He took a loaded gun into a crime scene and a tense situation. That already shows his thinking.

He then resisted arrest with a loaded gun and got into a fight with them. Thats all illegal and shows his thinking. As DHS said he intended to cause trouble taking a loaded gun with plenty of amo into a crime scene and volitile situation. Thats like taking a can of petrol to a fire.

Stopped_lurking said:
You introduced it. I don't claim to know what Pretti thought. If you first say that maybe he went to check if his gun was still in place, you can't just declare it as a unreal possibility. One of the things you learn when having a weapon is to always know where it is.

But the way I said it was to ridecule these ideas. I never once said they were realistic ideas. But you have grabbed onto them not me. I gave my reasoning anyway. Psychologically its disconnected and we know that peoples thinking usually matches their actions. Its called intent and that is the officers defense.

Theres no way in the world a defense of dreaming of some holiday or innocently checking for a gun with absolutely no thought of using it is unreal in that situation. Completely unreal. It would be laughed out of court.

Stopped_lurking · 2026-02-09T02:33:51-0600

stevevw said:
Not if its well supported. Its much more obvious and reasonable to say his thinking matched his actions. That his thinking was conflicting with his actions. He took a loaded gun into a crime scene and a tense situation. That already shows his thinking.

He then resisted arrest with a loaded gun and got into a fight with them. Thats all illegal and shows his thinking. As DHS said he intended to cause trouble taking a loaded gun with plenty of amo into a crime scene and volitile situation. Thats like taking a can of petrol to a fire.

But the way I said it was to ridecule these ideas. I never once said they were realistic ideas. But you have grabbed onto them not me. I gave my reasoning anyway. Psychologically its disconnected and we know that peoples thinking usually matches their actions.

Eh, if he thought about checking his gun, and then did that then the thoughts matched his actions.

His action was provably not retrieving his gun. He never drew his weapon at all.

So the actions were not him drawing a weapon.

stevevw said:
Its called intent and that is the officers defense.

Theres no way in the world a defense of dreaming of some holiday or innocently checking for a gun with absolutely no thought of using it is unreal in that situation. Completely unreal. It would be laughed out of court.

stevevw · 2026-02-09T03:51:10-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
Eh, if he thought about checking his gun, and then did that then the thoughts matched his actions.

Yes and thats illegal in that situation. Its a threatening act and Pretti would have known it. You give him the credit to be smart enough to check his gun. Then he was smart enough to know doig so while resisting is a threatening act.

Stopped_lurking said:
His action was provably not retrieving his gun. He never drew his weapon at all.

Because it was taken. What if it was not taken. Why did he take his gun to a peaceful protest. What sort of trouble was he expecting. In fact taking a gun to a law enforcement operation is procative. X police say its illegal as a responsible gun owner.

What sort of message was he intending with a gun opening carried on his hip with enough amo to kill a lot of people. A high powered gun with a sight on it. His parents said he never took his gun out. But here he is loaded up at a ICE protest for which he already had agreesive encounters with. Its quite obvious his thinking was to cause trouble.

Stopped_lurking said:
So the actions were not him drawing a weapon.

It depends. An officer has called gun so he has obviously seen a gun. Was it the gun cartridge. He seen something. So if Pretti drew his gun cartridge and it was mistaken for a gun. Then he may as well have drawn his gun in that situation while fighting officers.

Stopped_lurking · 2026-02-09T04:01:24-0600

stevevw said:
Yes and thats illegal in that situation. Its a threatening act and Pretti would have known it. You give him the credit to be smart enough to check his gun. Then he was smart enough to know doig so while resisting is a threatening act.

It still shows that the caption was speculative and tendentious.

stevevw said:
Because it was taken. What if it was not taken.

We don't know. To assume that he would have drawn his gun is speculative.

stevevw said:
Why did he take his gun to a peaceful protest. What sort of trouble was he expecting. In fact taking a gun to a law enforcement operation is procative. X police say its illegal as a responsible gun owner.

Show me the statue that forbids this in Minnesota, then.

stevevw said:
What sort of message was he intending with a gun opening carried on his hip with enough amo to kill a lot of people. A high powered gun with a sight on it. His parents said he never took his gun out. But here he is loaded up at a ICE protest for which he already had agreesive encounters with. Its quite obvious his thinking was to cause trouble.

It depends. An officer has called gun so he has obviously seen a gun. Was it the gun cartridge. He seen something. So if Pretti drew his gun cartridge and it was mistaken for a gun. Then he may as well have drawn his gun in that situation whicle fighting officers.

The facts are that he didn't draw his gun. When he was shot he didn't have the gun in his possession.

stevevw · 2026-02-09T07:15:42-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
It still shows that the caption was speculative and tendentious.

Why, its still like he drew his gun. Same thinking.

Stopped_lurking said:
We don't know. To assume that he would have drawn his gun is speculative.

Then how does the officers defend themselves in saying Pretti intended to be a threat. They are testifying that Pretti was intending to use his gun.

Stopped_lurking said:
Show me the statue that forbids this in Minnesota, then.

I linked this earlier.

Ai summary

In the United States, while the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, bringing a loaded firearm into an active police operation, crime scene, or restricted area is generally illegal, highly dangerous, and contrary to responsible gun ownership principles.

Experts agreed that Pretti would have been legally barred from threatening, interfering with or lying to officers. "As a general matter, peacefully observing a demonstration is different from criminally obstructing law enforcement,"

Fact-checking FBI Director Patel's claim that guns are barred at protests

After federal immigration agents shot and killed Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, FBI Director Kash Patel said people cannot bring loaded firearms to protests. Laws vary by state, but the law in Minnesota, and many other states, makes guns at protests legal.

www.pbs.org

Stopped_lurking said:
The facts are that he didn't draw his gun. When he was shot he didn't have the gun in his possession.

That doesn't matter. Someone called gun and thought he had a gun. Whether that was his real gun or his gun magazine it was percieved as having a gun.

Stopped_lurking · 2026-02-09T07:35:46-0600

stevevw said:
Why, its still like he drew his gun. Same thinking.

They are two different thoughts. Thinking about using your gun is not the same as thinking about checking if it is still in the holster. If that was went through his head at all.

stevevw said:
Then how does the officers defend themselves in saying Pretti intended to be a threat. They are testifying that Pretti was intending to use his gun.

Irrelevant, I have a problem with the caption making a statement about Pretti's thoughts.

My guess is that their defense is going to be about what they thought Pretti was doing.

stevevw said:
I linked this earlier.

Ai summary

In the United States, while the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, bringing a loaded firearm into an active police operation, crime scene, or restricted area is generally illegal, highly dangerous, and contrary to responsible gun ownership principles.

Experts agreed that Pretti would have been legally barred from threatening, interfering with or lying to officers. "As a general matter, peacefully observing a demonstration is different from criminally obstructing law enforcement,"

The AI summary doesn't say the same thing as your article. They seem completely unrelated. AI summaries without access to the AI model and exact prompt is useless. Even with these things, they are still making mistakes.

stevevw said:
Fact-checking FBI Director Patel's claim that guns are barred at protests

After federal immigration agents shot and killed Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, FBI Director Kash Patel said people cannot bring loaded firearms to protests. Laws vary by state, but the law in Minnesota, and many other states, makes guns at protests legal.

www.pbs.org

From your article

'In general, "There is no blanket prohibition or long-standing tradition against bringing otherwise lawfully owned and carried firearms to a protest, parade, demonstration, or other public event," said Clark Neily, senior vice president for legal studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "To the contrary, the default practice or tradition is that someone who is lawfully carrying a firearm may bring it to public gatherings, including protests and demonstrations."'

Show me the statue instead.

stevevw said:
That doesn't matter. Someone called gun and thought he had a gun. Whether that was his real gun or his gun magazine it was percieved as having a gun.

This is not connected to the caption in the Facebook post. I don't know why you keep on about it.

stevevw · 2026-02-09T10:19:55-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
They are two different thoughts. Thinking about using your gun is not the same as thinking about checking if it is still in the holster. If that was went through his head at all.

You keep injecting this unreal and contrary thinking into the situation like its a reality. Its not. The most obvious and normal and logical conclusion is that people don't think of contradictory ideas like that when their entire actions and body language is related to the kind of thinking that grabs for a gun.

His actions and body language was not like a person who is relaxed and just casually checking his gun. Its unreal spectulation. It has absolutely no evidence. You may as well say he was imagining cudling the officers. His body language was nothing like this.

Stopped_lurking said:
Irrelevant, I have a problem with the caption making a statement about Pretti's thoughts.

Why when its the most obvious and reasonable conclusion. Its not without good support. It will be the officers defense. Why is mentioning the officers defense that will be a real defense in court is a problem.

Your trying to undermine that by injecting unreal possibilities. Like they some how have equal support. They don't. They can show Pretti's thinking by his prior preparation, agitation, being willing to agitate with a loaded gun and refusing to hand over his gun when asked. He wanted to keep it.

He was fighting officers. He was displaying the actions of someone resisting who is more likely to use a gun. People who resist are more likely to use deadly force as part of resisting.

Stopped_lurking said:
My guess is that their defense is going to be about what they thought Pretti was doing.

Which is based on what they thought he was intending and thinking. They cannot be seperated. In fact this is the key defense. Showing Pretti intended to use his gun. There has to be intent. This is key in any crime. Motive and intent.

Stopped_lurking said:
The AI summary doesn't say the same thing as your article. They seem completely unrelated. AI summaries without access to the AI model and exact prompt is useless. Even with these things, they are still making mistakes.

What about the Ai summary is wrong. It all seems decent and common sense. Why would any law allow a person to carry a loaded gun into a crime scene. Especially one that was arresting a criminal.

The officers already have a tense situation which could escalate. Why allow more armed people into the operation. They are to remain on the sideline.

Stopped_lurking said:
From your article

'In general, "There is no blanket prohibition or long-standing tradition against bringing otherwise lawfully owned and carried firearms to a protest, parade, demonstration, or other public event," said Clark Neily, senior vice president for legal studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "To the contrary, the default practice or tradition is that someone who is lawfully carrying a firearm may bring it to public gatherings, including protests and demonstrations."'

Except it was not a "protest, parade, demonstration, or other public event,". It was a law enforcement operation.

Even so like I said there are certain extra responsibilities for the gun carrier even at a protest. But especially at a protest of a law enforcement operation. Which is borderline illegal fullstop. You don;ty seem to understand that this is the same as people protesting police trying to arrest a criminal. That is just crazy. Since when do we think its ok for protesterswith guns to impede police trying to get the bad guys.

A gun carrier cannot enage with the operation. Has to be on best behaviour and actually help maintain the peace. Because they have a higher responsibility carrying a gun. Pretti was agitating so his rights as a gun carrier are lost and he is no longer a peaceful protestor but an agitator impeding law enforcement.

Stopped_lurking said:
Show me the statue instead.

Minn. Stat. § 624.714, gun permit holders have specific obligations during interactions with law enforcement, and general statutes regarding obstruction apply to all citizens, including those carrying firearms.

Sec. 624.714 MN Statutes

www.revisor.mn.gov

2025 Minnesota Statutes
609.50 OBSTRUCTING LEGAL PROCESS, ARREST, OR FIREFIGHTING.
Subdivision 1.Crime.
Whoever intentionally does any of the following may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 2:
(1) obstructs, hinders, or prevents the lawful execution of any legal process, civil or criminal, or apprehension of another on a charge or conviction of a criminal offense;
(2) obstructs, resists, or interferes with a peace officer while the officer is engaged in the performance of official duties;

Sec. 609.50 MN Statutes

www.revisor.mn.gov

Linda426 · 2026-02-09T10:53:02-0600

Belk said:
I seem to recall ongoing issues with the surge in California. Did that just disappear down the memory hole? Or is this another case of "I have not heard of it, so it is not happening."?

Because Trump sent in the Nat’l Guard when
Such riots escalated to the point of the City
On the brink
Of being destroyed sent a very
Powerful message, thats why it
Disseminated shortly after that and
Saved the city from complete destruction.

Linda426 · 2026-02-09T11:16:25-0600

stevevw said:
You keep injecting this unreal and contrary thinking into the situation like its a reality. Its not. The most obvious and normal and logical conclusion is that people don't think of contradictory ideas like that when their entire actions and body language is related to the kind of thinking that grabs for a gun.

His actions and body language was not like a person who is relaxed and just casually checking his gun. Its unreal spectulation. It has absolutely no evidence. You may as well say he was imagining cudling the officers. His body language was nothing like this.

Why when its the most obvious and reasonable conclusion. Its not without good support. It will be the officers defense. Why is mentioning the officers defense that will be a real defense in court is a problem.

Your trying to undermine that by injecting unreal possibilities. Like they some how have equal support. They don't. They can show Pretti's thinking by his prior preparation, agitation, being willing to agitate with a loaded gun and refusing to hand over his gun when asked. He wanted to keep it.

He was fighting officers. He was displaying the actions of someone resisting who is more likely to use a gun. People who resist are more likely to use deadly force as part of resisting.

Which is based on what they thought he was intending and thinking. They cannot be seperated. In fact this is the key defense. Showing Pretti intended to use his gun. There has to be intent. This is key in any crime. Motive and intent.

What about the Ai summary is wrong. It all seems decent and common sense. Why would any law allow a person to carry a loaded gun into a crime scene. Especially one that was arresting a criminal.

The officers already have a tense situation which could escalate. Why allow more armed people into the operation. They are to remain on the sideline.

Except it was not a "protest, parade, demonstration, or other public event,". It was a law enforcement operation.

Even so like I said there are certain extra responsibilities for the gun carrier even at a protest. But especially at a protest of a law enforcement operation. Which is borderline illegal fullstop. You don;ty seem to understand that this is the same as people protesting police trying to arrest a criminal. That is just crazy. Since when do we think its ok for protesterswith guns to impede police trying to get the bad guys.

A gun carrier cannot enage with the operation. Has to be on best behaviour and actually help maintain the peace. Because they have a higher responsibility carrying a gun. Pretti was agitating so his rights as a gun carrier are lost and he is no longer a peaceful protestor but an agitator impeding law enforcement.

Minn. Stat. § 624.714, gun permit holders have specific obligations during interactions with law enforcement, and general statutes regarding obstruction apply to all citizens, including those carrying firearms.

Sec. 624.714 MN Statutes

www.revisor.mn.gov

2025 Minnesota Statutes
609.50 OBSTRUCTING LEGAL PROCESS, ARREST, OR FIREFIGHTING.
Subdivision 1.Crime.
Whoever intentionally does any of the following may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 2:
(1) obstructs, hinders, or prevents the lawful execution of any legal process, civil or criminal, or apprehension of another on a charge or conviction of a criminal offense;
(2) obstructs, resists, or interferes with a peace officer while the officer is engaged in the performance of official duties;

Sec. 609.50 MN Statutes

www.revisor.mn.gov

Pretti lost his rights as an outwardly displaying
Agitator, thats why those Officials werent guessing his thoughts, they watched his behavior long before any shot was fired, not
To mention that when these Officials feel
Threatened for their lives the law is on their
Side, rightfully so, thats why their motive
Came from all Pretti showed them beforehand, that was a motive putting them on high alert,
And Pretti was not any peaceful protester, so
These prior activities of Pretti were indeed
A threat, and their training to being put on
High Alert was not imagined, and they will
Not loose in Any Court, it was easily seen
Via Camera that this Suspect was a threat,
Arriving to the scene with Rage, not in any
Imaginery way, and for those who think
Officials merely assumed better go watch
The videos again.

Hans Blaster · 2026-02-09T12:19:42-0600

Linda426 said:
Pretti lost his rights as an outwardly displaying
Agitator, thats why those Officials werent guessing his thoughts, they watched his behavior long before any shot was fired, not
To mention that when these Officials feel
Threatened for their lives the law is on their
Side, rightfully so, thats why their motive
Came from all Pretti showed them beforehand, that was a motive putting them on high alert,
And Pretti was not any peaceful protester, so
These prior activities of Pretti were indeed
A threat, and their training to being put on
High Alert was not imagined, and they will
Not loose in Any Court, it was easily seen
Via Camera that this Suspect was a threat,
Arriving to the scene with Rage, not in any
Imaginery way, and for those who think
Officials merely assumed better go watch
The videos again.

What "arrived with rage" was seen on the video of his shooting?

(Your post is hard to follow. There are no clear sentences.)

Stopped_lurking · 2026-02-09T13:23:48-0600

stevevw said:
You keep injecting this unreal and contrary thinking into the situation like its a reality.

You injected it, you can't just then discard it by saying that it doesn't look like cuddling.

stevevw said:
Its not. The most obvious and normal and logical conclusion is that people don't think of contradictory ideas like that when their entire actions and body language is related to the kind of thinking that grabs for a gun.

His actions and body language was not like a person who is relaxed and just casually checking his gun.

Why do YOU inject casually in the description. This makes it look like you are trying to minimize the possibility. Perhaps he was worried about someone taking it, he couldn't see what happened behind his back. I don't know.

stevevw said:
Its unreal spectulation. It has absolutely no evidence. You may as well say he was imagining cudling the officers.

Why would checking on your weapon, be the same thing as cuddling? You know you can check on your weapon even in a tense situation.

stevevw said:
His body language was nothing like this.

Why when its the most obvious and reasonable conclusion. Its not without good support. It will be the officers defense. Why is mentioning the officers defense that will be a real defense in court is a problem.

It is not a problem, I'm not sure that it was a bad shoot. I am not discussing the officers culpability at all.

stevevw said:
Your trying to undermine that by injecting unreal possibilities. Like they some how have equal support. They don't. They can show Pretti's thinking by his prior preparation, agitation, being willing to agitate with a loaded gun and refusing to hand over his gun when asked. He wanted to keep it.

Quote me saying that I believe it to be a bad shoot.

stevevw said:
He was fighting officers. He was displaying the actions of someone resisting who is more likely to use a gun. People who resist are more likely to use deadly force as part of resisting.

This sentence doesn't make sense. People who resist are more likely to use deadly force than what? People that don't resist?

stevevw said:
Which is based on what they thought he was intending and thinking. They cannot be seperated. In fact this is the key defense. Showing Pretti intended to use his gun. There has to be intent. This is key in any crime. Motive and intent.

Police officers doesn't need to show the subjects intent in defensive shootings, at least not in Sweden. A quick googling shows at a cursory glance it is the same in the US (of course it might vary depending on jurisdiction).

As I said, my objection is against the caption of the Facebook post.

stevevw said:
What about the Ai summary is wrong. It all seems decent and common sense. Why would any law allow a person to carry a loaded gun into a crime scene. Especially one that was arresting a criminal.

The officers already have a tense situation which could escalate. Why allow more armed people into the operation. They are to remain on the sideline.

Except it was not a "protest, parade, demonstration, or other public event,". It was a law enforcement operation.

It can still be a protest.

stevevw said:
Even so like I said there are certain extra responsibilities for the gun carrier even at a protest.

Do you have the statue for these extra responsibilities due to anyone carrying? Other than carrying their permit and id.

stevevw said:
But especially at a protest of a law enforcement operation. Which is borderline illegal fullstop. You don;ty seem to understand that this is the same as people protesting police trying to arrest a criminal. That is just crazy. Since when do we think its ok for protesterswith guns to impede police trying to get the bad guys.

A gun carrier cannot enage with the operation. Has to be on best behaviour and actually help maintain the peace.

Where does it say they has to actually help maintain the peace?

stevevw said:
Because they have a higher responsibility carrying a gun. Pretti was agitating so his rights as a gun carrier are lost and he is no longer a peaceful protestor but an agitator impeding law enforcement.

Minn. Stat. § 624.714, gun permit holders have specific obligations during interactions with law enforcement, and general statutes regarding obstruction apply to all citizens, including those carrying firearms.

Nothing here says he couldn't bring his weapon to a protest.

stevevw said:
Sec. 624.714 MN Statutes

www.revisor.mn.gov

2025 Minnesota Statutes
609.50 OBSTRUCTING LEGAL PROCESS, ARREST, OR FIREFIGHTING.
Subdivision 1.Crime.
Whoever intentionally does any of the following may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 2:
(1) obstructs, hinders, or prevents the lawful execution of any legal process, civil or criminal, or apprehension of another on a charge or conviction of a criminal offense;
(2) obstructs, resists, or interferes with a peace officer while the officer is engaged in the performance of official duties;

Sec. 609.50 MN Statutes

www.revisor.mn.gov

Has nothing to do with weapons.

Belk · 2026-02-09T15:14:32-0600

Linda426 said:
Because Trump sent in the Nat’l Guard when
Such riots escalated to the point of the City
On the brink
Of being destroyed sent a very
Powerful message, thats why it
Disseminated shortly after that and
Saved the city from complete destruction.

stevevw · 2026-02-09T20:01:49-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
You injected it, you can't just then discard it by saying that it doesn't look like cuddling.

Yes I can. Pretti's tense, agressive and resisting body language is more in line with grabbing his gun that cuddling the officers. You are trying to completely detach actions and thinking.

Now your saying that even if he was thinking of cuddling the officers his language does not have to reflect that. It can reflect the complete opposite of agression instead of kindness and softness. This is unreal and incoherent thinking.

Stopped_lurking said:
Why do YOU inject casually in the description. This makes it look like you are trying to minimize the possibility. Perhaps he was worried about someone taking it, he couldn't see what happened behind his back. I don't know.

Why would he be worried about someone taking it during resistence unless he wanted it for himself. Worrying about his gun while resisting is exactly the thinking to use his gun. Its on his mind while fighting off the officers. If he thought of his gun at that point it was to use it. Your being completely unreal just to undermine the obvious.

Stopped_lurking said:
Why would checking on your weapon, be the same thing as cuddling? You know you can check on your weapon even in a tense situation.

Do you think Pretti would have realised that checking your gun while resisting police is not a good idea. That it would be seen as the same thing as going for your gun. Yet he still did it.

Your making out that Pretti is completely devoid of a brain. If he was smart enough to check for his gun. He was smart enough to know it was the absolutely wrong time to check his gun. Your actually making him out to be a moron.

Stopped_lurking said:
It is not a problem, I'm not sure that it was a bad shoot. I am not discussing the officers culpability at all.

Then why all this defense of Pretti. The amount of effort some are putting in to show Pretti is justified is crazy.

Stopped_lurking said:
Quote me saying that I believe it to be a bad shoot.

Its more your biased view. You accuse the video of being biased. Yet you cannot acknowledge the obvious.

Stopped_lurking said:
This sentence doesn't make sense. People who resist are more likely to use deadly force than what? People that don't resist?

Then people who are thinking nice thoughts, wanting to cuddle people, wanting to innocently check for their gun, or dreaming of a holiday. All this kind of thinking go with body language that is calm, cooperating, friendly ect.

Your claiming that people can think of these nice things while agressively resisting and fighting someone off. This body language relates more to a disposition that will grab for a gun that cuddle someone. Do you understand the physichological difference and how that influences body language and actions.

Stopped_lurking said:
Police officers doesn't need to show the subjects intent in defensive shootings, at least not in Sweden. A quick googling shows at a cursory glance it is the same in the US (of course it might vary depending on jurisdiction).

Then why are you going on about Prettis thinking. This makes it even more in favor of the officers. They don't have to show Pretti intended to use a gun. Only that they reasonably believed he did.

Thus the sight of a black metal magazine he got from his holster was the percieved threat. End of story. Pretti guilty of being a threat to law enforcement as stated.

Stopped_lurking said:
As I said, my objection is against the caption of the Facebook post.

Thats exactly what the officers are going to say. Why is it a problem. Its the officers defense. Though put more bluntly. THis will be the arguement.

Stopped_lurking said:
It can still be a protest.

No the protesters cannot magically turn a law enforcement operation into some civil protest. There are different laws that apply. A protestor stepping over the line in a civil protest outside os company. Is different to stepping over the line in a police operation.

Stopped_lurking said:
Do you have the statue for these extra responsibilities due to anyone carrying? Other than carrying their permit and id.

Yes there are extra responsibilities for gun carriers

Other Legal Restrictions That May Apply at Protests
Lawful carry can quickly become illegal if you are violating another law at the same time, such as brandishing or threatening behavior, disorderly conduct or riot-related restrictions.

Even in states that allow public carry, there may be location-specific restrictions that apply whether or not a protest is occurring. Sensitive places such as schools, courthouses, polling places and government buildings are commonly restricted under state law.

Carrying a firearm to a public assembly raises practical and legal considerations beyond whether it is technically permitted. Peacefully assembling and expressing your views is as much a constitutional right as the right to bear arms. However, attending a protest combined with the exercise of gun rights can create risk due to large crowds, heightened emotions, unpredictable behavior from participants and rapidly changing conditions.

If you choose to attend a protest as a legally armed citizen, you should proceed with extra caution. Understanding the law ahead of time and making informed decisions about personal safety and de-escalation can help reduce your legal and personal risk in any public gathering.

Practice good situational awareness and leave the protest if things begin to escalate to avoid danger.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/can-you-carry-a-gun-at-a-protest/#:~:text=While%20there%20is%20no%20federal,and%20other%20restrictions%20still%20apply.

Pretti did the opposite as a gun holder. In fact once he got involved and touched the officers he was then no longer a protestor. He actively engaged with a loaded gun. But he should have known all this. He disregarded it all.

Stopped_lurking said:
Where does it say they has to actually help maintain the peace?

Above.

Stopped_lurking said:
Nothing here says he couldn't bring his weapon to a protest.

I am not even saying that. He may have had the right as a protestor. But that right stops once he engages. He crossed the line. But this was his MO. He was doing it all the time.

He did it just before the incident in another situation when he ran into the operation while all other protestors stayed back. He wqas the instigator and not the peaceful protestor with a loaded gun. Its crazy.

stevevw · 2026-02-09T20:17:32-0600

Linda426 said:
Pretti lost his rights as an outwardly displaying
Agitator, thats why those Officials werent guessing his thoughts, they watched his behavior long before any shot was fired, not
To mention that when these Officials feel
Threatened for their lives the law is on their
Side, rightfully so, thats why their motive
Came from all Pretti showed them beforehand, that was a motive putting them on high alert,
And Pretti was not any peaceful protester, so
These prior activities of Pretti were indeed
A threat, and their training to being put on
High Alert was not imagined, and they will
Not loose in Any Court, it was easily seen
Via Camera that this Suspect was a threat,
Arriving to the scene with Rage, not in any
Imaginery way, and for those who think
Officials merely assumed better go watch
The videos again.

Yes this is a normal understand of the link between thinking and behaviour. The officers were reading what Pretti was thinking and intending by the way he acted and the agressive disposition and language. Carrying a loaded gun magnified this. They are trained to spot these things and were well ahead.

Linda426 · 2026-02-09T20:42:30-0600

Hans Blaster said:
What "arrived with rage" was seen on the video of his shooting?

(Your post is hard to follow. There are no clear sentences.)

I understood it

Hans Blaster · 2026-02-09T20:53:36-0600

Linda426 said:
I understood it

well I didn't.

stevevw · 2026-02-09T20:53:39-0600

What about this body language. Was Pretti thinking of spitting at officers. Or was he thinking all nice, peaceful and innocent thoughts.

I think that pretty well sums up what Pretti thought of the officers. His whole demeana was agressive. offensive, agitating and resisting. He brought this on himself.

Speaking of reading body language look at the difference between Elizabeth Warrens narrative of Pretti and the reality. This is a good example of how ideology blinds.

117K views · 1.2K reactions | The story of Alex Pretti, read by Elizabeth Warren | Republican Party of Walworth County

The story of Alex Pretti, read by Elizabeth Warren

www.facebook.com

Linda426 · 2026-02-09T21:00:39-0600

Hans Blaster said:
well I didn't.

Im very sorry, but may i ask what you said didnt make sense reading it?

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Why is the extreme issue with ICE only in one state?

Well-Known Member

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

ICE officers detain five-year-old Minnesota boy as he arrives home from preschool​

In short:​

What's next?​

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Active Member

Active Member

Call Me Al

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

inquisitive

inquisitive

Active Member

Call Me Al

inquisitive

Active Member

Similar threads

ICE officers detain five-year-old Minnesota boy as he arrives home from preschool

In short:

What's next?